Michael O'Neill
2005-12-08 10:48:21 UTC
Vince Brannigan wrote:
<snip>
(i) the threat to America at 9-11 did not come from without. There was no
vast flotilla of planes or boats or platoons of armed personnel
approaching over land bridges. The threat came from personnel already
within America and at least one of the persons involved [Mohammed Atta]
was known to high level officers in the American Military. The presence
of the Venice cadre of terrorists was known to the FBI, who appeared on
the doorstep of their apartment less than 6 hours after the event.
Despite this, the term "defend the national security" did not inspire a
root and branch review of every person in the United States, their
origins, level of armament and their intent. It resulted in the
invasion of two countries, one of which was a fractured political
entity, Afghanistan, part of whose population were in thrall to the
Taliban, a political-religious group who until the previous summer had
been in negotiation with America for the building of an oil pipeline
across territory they controlled. The putative reason here was the
harbouring of Osama Bin Laden, the alleged leader of Al-Q'ida, a man with
a kidney complaint who had been been visited at a hospital in Dubai by
the local CIA officer the previous summer. Although there was no direct
link shown at any stage between Osama Bin Laden and Al-Q'ida at any
stage, although there was evidence that he was under CIA instruction,
American invaded Afghanistan.
(ii) the term "relevant" is itself relevant. The driving force behind the
invasion of Iraq was the removal of the alleged threat of Saddam's
regime to western countries using WMDs. Hyped by the previous
administration, this threat was stated [by Colin Powell in his address to
the United Nations] to include vast tonnages of chemical weapons and huge
numbers of other forms of weapons of mass destruction, the locations of
the factories known and shown on photographs, with the allegedly
imminent threat of nuclear strikes in capital cities of western Europe
and America. Although mentioned in Presidential speeches about Al-Q'ida,
there was no proof offered of any involvement by Iraq in 9-11. Yet
interviewed American citizens had, by the end of a year after 9-11 had
formed an opinion that Iraq was somehow involved. Two separate
investigations, one led by Hans Blix before the invasion, one led by
David Kay after the invasion, found no chemical weapons, no WMDs of
other kinds. Moreover, apart from some paper statements and diagrams
there was no extant nuclear programme. The alleged purchase of Yellowcake
from Niger was shown to be based on crude paper forgeries with no person
available to testify to back it up. An investigation by a high-level
American official [Wilson] before the invasion confirmed this. Take away
WMDs and the UN Resolution becomes IRRELEVANT, the actions sanctioned by
it becoming unlawful use of force against a sovereign country which had
not threatened America.
Its very simple.
a) Defend America?
No problem. Good luck to America, she's already riddled with spies and
fifth columnists, some of whom are obviously influencing government. She
has a hard job ahead of her. The last thing America should do is view
her people as assets, the providers of a tax base with which to finance
foreign wars. The founding fathers sought to escape that kind of European
mentality. I suggest America develops community policing, and invests the
money she is spending on war to improve health, education and welfare
provision, that she begins to look after her people, instead of allowing
her security forces to import drugs with which to decimate the
populations of her inner cities and small towns. Otherwise she fails of
her promise and destroys her greatest wealth, her people.
b) Invade Iraq?
WMDs = basis for war.
No WMDs - no basis for war.
America had no legitimate reason for the invasion. She should stay at
home and not have her security forces put petty dictators in government,
then she wouldn't have any Saddams to worry about. Oh but what would be
her reasons for foreign adventuring then, ehhh? What indeed...
c) Expand the theatre of operations to include Iran, North Korea?
America should Defend her borders, increase her security, stay out of
other countries. America doesn't own the world and where she breaks
international law and visits atrocities on an already oppressed
population, whose oppression was made worse by American led sanctions for
a decade, and who was subject to the rule of an American-supported
strongman, than she will be held to account. As it is, American
credibility as the upholder and defender of Freedom and Democracy has
been hugely challenged by events leading up to, during and after her
ongoing foreign adventures in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
d) Use of Torture and Internment without Trial in COncentration Camps
Previously vilified as an action of Germany during WWII, the use of
internment without trial in concentration camps against an oppressed
population or ethnic sub-group was invented by the British in the Boer
War in the nineteenth century. The British again used it against Northern
Irish Nationals during the Troubles. America is now using it against
Muslims. The kidnapping and holding without trial of foreign nationals in
Guantanamo Bay after their incarceration in Afghanistan, Iraq and in
intermediate countries to avoid laws on torture being broken in America
is well documented.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Guantanamo_composite_statement_FINAL.pdf
The use of former soviet block countries, Egypt and European countries as
holding and/or torturing camps is deplored. The use of Shannon Airport in
the Republic of Ireland to transport illegally detained prisoners is not
acceptable.
M.
<snip>
From a purely legal point of view
the Congressional joint resolution is
more than adequate to establish the
facial legal validity of the Iraq war.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President
is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines
to be necessary and appropriate in
order to
(1) defend the national security
of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United
Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Vince
I accept your point in principle Vince, however...the Congressional joint resolution is
more than adequate to establish the
facial legal validity of the Iraq war.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President
is authorized to use the Armed Forces
of the United States as he determines
to be necessary and appropriate in
order to
(1) defend the national security
of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United
Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Vince
(i) the threat to America at 9-11 did not come from without. There was no
vast flotilla of planes or boats or platoons of armed personnel
approaching over land bridges. The threat came from personnel already
within America and at least one of the persons involved [Mohammed Atta]
was known to high level officers in the American Military. The presence
of the Venice cadre of terrorists was known to the FBI, who appeared on
the doorstep of their apartment less than 6 hours after the event.
Despite this, the term "defend the national security" did not inspire a
root and branch review of every person in the United States, their
origins, level of armament and their intent. It resulted in the
invasion of two countries, one of which was a fractured political
entity, Afghanistan, part of whose population were in thrall to the
Taliban, a political-religious group who until the previous summer had
been in negotiation with America for the building of an oil pipeline
across territory they controlled. The putative reason here was the
harbouring of Osama Bin Laden, the alleged leader of Al-Q'ida, a man with
a kidney complaint who had been been visited at a hospital in Dubai by
the local CIA officer the previous summer. Although there was no direct
link shown at any stage between Osama Bin Laden and Al-Q'ida at any
stage, although there was evidence that he was under CIA instruction,
American invaded Afghanistan.
(ii) the term "relevant" is itself relevant. The driving force behind the
invasion of Iraq was the removal of the alleged threat of Saddam's
regime to western countries using WMDs. Hyped by the previous
administration, this threat was stated [by Colin Powell in his address to
the United Nations] to include vast tonnages of chemical weapons and huge
numbers of other forms of weapons of mass destruction, the locations of
the factories known and shown on photographs, with the allegedly
imminent threat of nuclear strikes in capital cities of western Europe
and America. Although mentioned in Presidential speeches about Al-Q'ida,
there was no proof offered of any involvement by Iraq in 9-11. Yet
interviewed American citizens had, by the end of a year after 9-11 had
formed an opinion that Iraq was somehow involved. Two separate
investigations, one led by Hans Blix before the invasion, one led by
David Kay after the invasion, found no chemical weapons, no WMDs of
other kinds. Moreover, apart from some paper statements and diagrams
there was no extant nuclear programme. The alleged purchase of Yellowcake
from Niger was shown to be based on crude paper forgeries with no person
available to testify to back it up. An investigation by a high-level
American official [Wilson] before the invasion confirmed this. Take away
WMDs and the UN Resolution becomes IRRELEVANT, the actions sanctioned by
it becoming unlawful use of force against a sovereign country which had
not threatened America.
Its very simple.
a) Defend America?
No problem. Good luck to America, she's already riddled with spies and
fifth columnists, some of whom are obviously influencing government. She
has a hard job ahead of her. The last thing America should do is view
her people as assets, the providers of a tax base with which to finance
foreign wars. The founding fathers sought to escape that kind of European
mentality. I suggest America develops community policing, and invests the
money she is spending on war to improve health, education and welfare
provision, that she begins to look after her people, instead of allowing
her security forces to import drugs with which to decimate the
populations of her inner cities and small towns. Otherwise she fails of
her promise and destroys her greatest wealth, her people.
b) Invade Iraq?
WMDs = basis for war.
No WMDs - no basis for war.
America had no legitimate reason for the invasion. She should stay at
home and not have her security forces put petty dictators in government,
then she wouldn't have any Saddams to worry about. Oh but what would be
her reasons for foreign adventuring then, ehhh? What indeed...
c) Expand the theatre of operations to include Iran, North Korea?
America should Defend her borders, increase her security, stay out of
other countries. America doesn't own the world and where she breaks
international law and visits atrocities on an already oppressed
population, whose oppression was made worse by American led sanctions for
a decade, and who was subject to the rule of an American-supported
strongman, than she will be held to account. As it is, American
credibility as the upholder and defender of Freedom and Democracy has
been hugely challenged by events leading up to, during and after her
ongoing foreign adventures in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
d) Use of Torture and Internment without Trial in COncentration Camps
Previously vilified as an action of Germany during WWII, the use of
internment without trial in concentration camps against an oppressed
population or ethnic sub-group was invented by the British in the Boer
War in the nineteenth century. The British again used it against Northern
Irish Nationals during the Troubles. America is now using it against
Muslims. The kidnapping and holding without trial of foreign nationals in
Guantanamo Bay after their incarceration in Afghanistan, Iraq and in
intermediate countries to avoid laws on torture being broken in America
is well documented.
http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Guantanamo_composite_statement_FINAL.pdf
The use of former soviet block countries, Egypt and European countries as
holding and/or torturing camps is deplored. The use of Shannon Airport in
the Republic of Ireland to transport illegally detained prisoners is not
acceptable.
M.